UpmanPJMuenchT. Comprehensive scoring system for biomaterial implants, American College of Toxicology Presentation. Int J Toxicol2004; 23: P384.
2.
WilliamsDF. Definitions in biomaterials. Proceedings of a Consensus Conference of the European Society for Biomaterials, Chester, UK, 3–5 March 1986. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, 2004.
3.
GeckilHXuFZhangX, et al.Engineering hydrogels as extracellular matrix mimics. Nanomedicine2010; 5(3): 469–484.
4.
SurudžićRJankovićAMitrićM, et al.The effect of graphene loading on mechanical, thermal and biological properties of poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene nanocomposites. J Ind Eng Chem2016; 34: 250–257.
5.
WuJQLiuYYangTF, et al.[Porous polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel composite prepared and studied initially for biocompatibility]. Sichuan da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban2007; 38: 705–724.
6.
ZavanBCortivoRAbatangeloG. Hydrogels and tissue engineering. In: BarbucciR (ed) Hydrogels biological properties and applications. Italia: Milano; 2009, pp. 1–8.
7.
RatnerBD. A pore way to heal and regenerate: 21st century thinking on biocompatibility. Regen Biomater2016; 3: 107–110.
8.
WilliamsFM. In vitro studies-how good are they at replacing in vivo studies for measurement of skin absorption?Environ Toxicol Pharmacol2006; 21: 199–203.
9.
NešovićKJankovićARadetićT, et al.Chitosan-based hydrogel wound dressings with electrochemically incorporated silver nanoparticles – in vitro study. Eur Polym J2019; 121: 109257.
10.
AbudabbusMMJevremovićIJankovićA, et al.Biological activity of electrochemically synthesized silver doped polyvinyl alcohol/graphene composite hydrogel discs for biomedical applications. Compos B Eng2016; 104: 26–34.
11.
LužajićBožinovskiTMarkovićDTodorovićV, et al.In vivo investigation of soft tissue response of novel silver/poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene and silver/poly(vinyl alcohol)/chitosan/graphene hydrogels aimed for medical applications–the first experience. Acta Vet2018; 68: 321–339.
12.
NešovićKAbudabbusMMRheeKY, et al.Graphene based composite hydrogel for biomedical applications. Croat Chem Acta2017; 90(2): 207–213.
13.
MarkovićDKojićZMarinkovićD, et al.Histological and immunohistochemical evaluations of rat soft tissue response to bioceramical implants. Acta Vet2009; 59: 243–253.
14.
StojkovskaJDjurdjevicZJancicI, et al.Comparative in vivo evaluation of novel formulations based on alginate and silver nanoparticles for wound treatments. J Biomater Appl2018; 32(9): 1197–1211.
15.
StojanovicDJanackovicDJMarkovicD, et al.A tissue-implant reaction associated with subcutaneous implantation of alpha-tricalcium phosphate, dental ceramic, and hydroxyapatite bioceramics in rats. Acta Vet2008; 58: 381–393.
16.
ProkićBBLužajić BožinovskiTGajdovV, et al.Animal models in bicompatibility assessments of implants in soft and hard tissues. Vet Glasnik2021: 1–16, DOI: 10.2298/VETGL210322005P.
17.
AndersonJMMillerKM. Biomaterial biocompatibility and the macrophage. Biomaterials1984; 5: 5–10.
18.
TrindadeRAlbrektssonTTengvallP, et al.Foreign body reaction to biomaterials: on mechanisms for buildup and breakdown of osseointegration. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res2016; 18(1): 192–203.
19.
KamounEAKenawyE-RSChenX. A review on polymeric hydrogel membranes for wound dressing applications: PVA-based hydrogel dressings. J Adv Res2017; 8: 217–233.
20.
MirMAliMNBarakullahA, et al.Synthetic polymeric biomaterials for wound healing: a review. Prog Biomater2018; 7: 1–21.
RatnerBDAtzetS. Hydrogels for healing. In: BarbucciR (ed) Hydrogels biological properties and applications. Italia: Milano; 2009, pp. 43–51.
23.
GonzalezJSLudueñaLNPonceA, et al.Poly(vinyl alcohol)/cellulose nanowhiskers nanocomposite hydrogels for potential wound dressings. Mater Sci Eng C2014; 34: 54–61.
PenchevaDBryaskovaRKantardjievT. Polyvinyl alcohol/silver nanoparticles (PVA/AgNps) as a model for testing the biological activity of hybrid materials with included silver nanoparticles. Mater Sci Eng C2012; 32: 2048–2051.
26.
LooC-YYoungPMLeeW-H, et al.Non-cytotoxic silver nanoparticle-polyvinyl alcohol hydrogels with anti-biofilm activity: designed as coatings for endotracheal tube materials. Biofouling2014; 30: 773–788.
27.
LiCFuRYuC, et al.Silver nanoparticle/chitosan oligosaccharide/poly(vinyl alcohol) nanofibers as wound dressings: a preclinical study. Int J Nanomed2013; 8: 4131–4145.
28.
OlivieraRNRouzéRQuiltyB, et al.Mechanical properties and in vitro characterization of polyvinyl alcohol-nano-silver hydrogel wound dressings. Int Focus2014; 4: 20130049.
29.
ChenHChengRZhaoX, et al.An injectable self-healing coordinative hydrogel with antibacterial and angiogenic properties for diabetic skin wound repair. NPG Asia Mat2019; 11(1): 1–12.
30.
FanZLiuBWangJ, et al.A novel wound dressing based on Ag/graphene polymer hydrogel: effectively kill bacteria and accelerate wound healing. Adv Funct Mater2014; 24: 3933–3943.
31.
NešovićKJankovićAPerić-GrujićA, et al.Kinetic models of swelling and thermal stability of silver/poly(vinyl alcohol)/chitosan/graphene hydrogels. J Ind Eng Chem2019; 77: 83–96.
32.
UsmanAHussainZRiazA, et al.Enhanced mechanical, thermal and antimicrobial properties of poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene oxide/starch/silver nanocomposites films. Carbohydr Polym2016; 153: 592–599.
33.
HegabHMElmekawyAZouL, et al.The controversial antibacterial activity of graphene-based materials. Carbon2016; 105: 362–376.
34.
AbudabbusMMJevremovićINešovićK, et al.In situ electrochemical synthesis of silver-doped poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene composite hydrogels and their physico-chemical and thermal properties. Compos B Eng2018; 140: 99–107.
35.
WilliamsDF. On the nature of biomaterials. Biomaterials2009; 30: 5897–5909.
36.
WardWKSlobodzianEPTiekotterKL, et al.The effect of microgeometry, implant thickness and polyurethane chemistry on the foreign body response to subcutaneous implants. Biomaterials2002; 23: 4185–4192.
37.
SharmaJLizuMStewartM, et al.Multifunctional nanofibers towards active biomedical therapeutics. Polymers2015; 7: 186–219.
38.
HanSSunJHeS, et al.The application of graphene-based biomaterials in biomedicine. Am J Transl Res2019; 11(6): 3246–3260.
39.
SheikhZBrooksPBarzilayO, et al.Macrophages, foreign body giant cells and their response to implantable biomaterials. Materials2015; 8: 5671–5701.
40.
LuttikhuizenDTHarmsenMCLuynMJAV. Cellular and molecular dynamics in the foreign body reaction. Tissue Eng2006; 12: 1955–1970.
41.
AndersonJMRodriguezAChangDT. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol2008; 20: 86–100.
42.
YeQHarmsenMCvan LuynMJA, et al.The relationship between collagen scaffold cross-linking agents and neutrophils in the foreign body reaction. Biomaterials2010; 31: 9192–9201.
43.
DadsetanMJonesJAHiltnerA, et al.Surface chemistry mediates adhesive structure, cytoskeletal organization, and fusion of macrophages. J Biomed Mater Res2004; 71A: 439–448.
44.
IkedaTIkedaKSasakiK, et al.IL-13 as well as IL-4 induces monocytes/macrophages and a monoblastic cell line (UG3) to differentiate into multinucleated giant cells in the presence of M-CSF. Biochem Biophys Res Commun1998; 253: 265–272.
45.
BrodbeckWGColtonEAndersonJM. Effects of adsorbed heat labile serum proteins and fibrinogen on adhesion and apoptosis of monocytes/macrophages on biomaterials. J Mater Sci Mater Med2003; 14: 671–675.
46.
HenchLLThompsonI. Twenty-first century challenges for biomaterials. J R Soc Interf2010; 7(Suppl 4): S379–S391.
47.
XiaZTriffittJT. A review on macrophage responses to biomaterials. Biomed Mater (Bristol, England)2006; 1(1): R1–R9.
48.
MacLauchlanSSkokosEAMeznarichN, et al.Macrophage fusion, giant cell formation, and the foreign body response require matrix metalloproteinase 9. J Leukoc Biol2009; 85(4): 617–626.
49.
WujcikEKMontyCN. Nanotechnology for implantable sensors: carbon nanotubes and graphene in medicine. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol2013; 5: 233–249.
50.
ThompsonBCMurrayEWallaceGG. Graphite oxide to graphene. biomaterials to bionics. Adv Mater2015; 27(46): 7563–7582.
51.
JiHSunHQuX. Antibacterial applications of graphene-based nanomaterials: recent achievements and challenges. Adv Drug Deliv Rev2016; 105: 176–189.
52.
HotalingNATangLIrvineDJ, et al.Biomaterial strategies for immunomodulation. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2015; 17: 317–349.
53.
SjögrenGSlettenGDahlJE. Cytotoxicity of dental alloys, metals, and ceramics assessed by millipore filter, agar overlay, and MTT tests. J Prosthet Dent2000; 84(2): 229–236.
54.
Lužajić BožinovskiTMiloševićITodorovićV, et al.Evaluation of soft tissue regenerative process after subcutaneous implantation of silver/poly(vinyl alcohol) and novel silver/poly(vinyl alcohol)/graphene hydrogels in an animal model. Acta Vet2021; 71(3). DOI: 10.2478/acve-2021-0025.
55.
CollierTOAndersonJM. Protein and surface effects on monocyte and macrophage adhesion, maturation, and survival. J Biomed Mater Res2002; 60: 487–496.
56.
RossJAugerMBurkeB, et alThe biology of the macrophage. Macrophage2002; 2: 16–23.
57.
DeFifeKMColtonENakayamaY, et al.Spatial regulation and surface chemistry control of monocyte/macrophage adhesion and foreign body giant cell formation by photochemically micropatterned surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res1999; 45: 148–154.
58.
HuntJAShoichetM. Biomaterials: surface interactions. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci2001; 5: 161–162.
59.
SalthouseTN. Some aspects of macrophage behavior at the implant interface. J Biomed Mater Res1984; 18: 395–401.
60.
ShanbhagASJacobsJJBlackJ, et al.Macrophage/particle interactions: effect of size, composition and surface area. J Biomed Mater Res1994; 28: 81–90.
61.
KaoWJZhaoQHHiltnerA, et al.Theoretical analysis ofin vivo macrophage adhesion and foreign body gaint cell formation on polydimethylsiloxane, low density polyethylene, and polyetherurethanes. J Biomed Mater Res1994; 28: 73–79.
62.
GarriguesGEChoDRRubashHE, et al.Gene expression clustering using self-organizing maps: analysis of the macrophage response to particulate biomaterials. Biomaterials2005; 26: 2933–2945.
63.
ShenMHorbettTA. The effects of surface chemistry and adsorbed proteins on monocyte/macrophage adhesion to chemically modified polystyrene surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res2001; 57: 336–345.
64.
BrodbeckWGMacEwanMColtonE, et al.Lymphocytes and the foreign body response: lymphocyte enhancement of macrophage adhesion and fusion. J Biomed Mater Res A2005; 74A: 222–229.
65.
AndersonJM. Future challenges in thein vitroandin vivoevaluation of biomaterial biocompatibility. Regen Biomater2016; 3(2): 73–77.
66.
MartinezFOGordonS. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000prime Rep2014; 6: 13.
67.
GordonSPlüddemannAMartinez EstradaF. Macrophage heterogeneity in tissues: phenotypic diversity and functions. Immunological Rev2014; 262: 36–55.
68.
KzhyshkowskaJGudimaARiabovV, et al.Macrophage responses to implants: prospects for personalized medicine. J Leukoc Biol2015; 98: 953–962.
69.
OhashiWHattoriKHattoriY. Control of macrophage dynamics as a potential therapeutic approach for clinical disorders involving chronic inflammation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther2015; 354: 240–250.
70.
HanGCeilleyR. Chronic wound healing: a review of current management and treatments. Adv Ther2017; 34(3): 599–610.
71.
BygdHCMaLBratlieKM. Physicochemical properties of liposomal modifiers that shift macrophage phenotype. Mater Sci Eng C2017; 79: 237–244.
72.
BryantSJPeytonSR. Zwitterionic PEG-PC hydrogels modulate the foreign body response in a modulus-dependent manner. Biomacromolecules2018; 19(7): 2880–2888.
73.
LiZBratlieKM. How cross-linking mechanisms of methacrylated gellan gum hydrogels alter macrophage phenotype. ACS Appl Bio Mater2019; 2(1): 217–225.
74.
XuZHwangD-GBartlettMD, et al.Alter macrophage adhesion and modulate their response on hydrophobically modified hydrogels. Biochem Eng J2021; 165: 107821.
75.
AndersonJMDefifeKMcNallyA, et al.Monocyte, macrophage and foreign body giant cell interactions with molecularly engineered surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med1999; 10: 579–588.
